Posted on 04/26/2007 3:03:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
April 26, 2007 -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama laced into Rudy Giuliani yesterday after the GOP front-runner sparked an uproar by declaring America would be more vulnerable to a terror attack with a Democrat in the White House.
Former Sen. John Edwards and the Democratic National Committee also joined in on the anti-Rudy romp, accusing him of politicizing the war on terror in a daylong brawl.
Giuliani chuckled about the swirl of Democratic outrage about his comments, which put the media focus squarely on his strongest point - his 9/11 performance.
"It sounds like I hit at least a triple," Giuliani told radio host Sean Hannity. "I was trying for a home run, but I think I got at least a triple - meaning I have got the three leading Democratic candidates attacking me."
The flap started after Giuliani said in a speech in New Hampshire on Tuesday night that the nation will defeat terrorism no matter who wins in 2008, but that the Democrats want to "wave the white flag."
He told the Web site Politico.com that America will be "safer with a Republican president."
... Giuliani insisted he wasn't questioning the Democrats' patriotism, but added, "Everything I said is absolutely true - they want to retreat in Iraq."
He claimed that the Democrats "do not seem to get the fact there are . . . really dangerous people who want to come here and kill us. That, in fact, they did come here and kill us twice, and they got away with it because we were on defense, because we weren't alert enough to the dangers."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Bump!
Good point.
They think we’re too powerful and that we need to be more like Europe.
The US will be in a lot more danger with the dhimmicrats running things.
Freepmail me to be added or removed from this list.
“dems on warpath”
when haven’t the obnoxious, revolutionary, leftist dems NOT been on the warpath?
(scu&bags upon whom brains have been wasted)
Too little, too late.
But keep up the good work on Iraq, maybe you will get an ambassadorship to Italy.
Bump!
Yes, the Giuliani spectacle is bringing surprises to many who were ignorant about his base of support:
* Supporters of abortion who’ve claimed to be against it (reminiscent of a religious pro-abortion protest in a Denver stadium long ago).
* Closet opponents of our Second Amendment.
* Supporters of unconstitutional power for corrupt municipal governments.
* Opponents of our defense.
Giuliani ‘not confident’ war will turn around
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1785020/posts
Giuliani Says He Is Running for President in ’08 [And criticized our President on Iraq.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1785153/posts
* Supporters of homosexual activism.
The list goes on.
All the republican candidates must be attacking all the democrats in this way, but most of them seem unable. The gutless wussie democrats would raise the white flag and whine and blame others.
The Dems would walk across our flag to get power.
It’s a big mistake.
Yeah right. As if voting for Rudy isn’t voting for a democrat. If Rudy gets the nomination and Hillary gets the nomination—not much difference.
French-style...
Thanks for the info.
They’re irresponsible but calculating as they play to their left wing.
But, yeah, when liberals run the show, any attack is more likely to succeed.
I'd feel a little better about the potential for and the amount of damage likely with Guliani in charge than ANY Democrat (except, maybe Joe Lieberman.. I pretty much equate the two overall; Both social liberals that are fairly rational when it comes to defense.).
But, if Guliani is the best we can really do, then we likely deserve whatever we get from the jihadis.
What? The wrath of God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.